On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 14:19 +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > Please let me know if this fixes the performance issues you > were seeing and if you have any other comments. > > FWIW I've bootstrapped and regression tested this version of > the patch on x86_64 and ARM with no regressions. > > Thanks, > James Greenhalgh
James, This patch does give me the same performance as my original patch, so that is excellent. While testing it I noticed that the final executable is larger with your patch then with mine. Here are the sizes of the bare-metal executables I created using the same flags I sent you earlier, the first has no switch optimization, the second one uses my plugin optimization, and the third uses your latest patch. I haven't looked into why the size difference for your patch and mine exists, do you see a size difference on your platforms? I am not sure if path threading in general is turned off for -Os but it probably should be. % ll -art coremark.fsf*elf -rwxr-xr-x 1 sellcey src 413812 Jun 19 11:11 coremark.fsf.1.elf -rwxr-xr-x 1 sellcey src 414676 Jun 19 11:11 coremark.fsf.2.elf -rwxr-xr-x 1 sellcey src 416402 Jun 19 11:11 coremark.fsf.3.elf Steve Ellcey sell...@mips.com
